Olin Nowlin v. William Stephens, Director

Fifth Circuit

Olin Nowlin v. William Stephens, Director

548 F. App'x 286

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 16, 2013

Docket13-10620

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 548 F. App'x 286 (Olin Nowlin v. William Stephens, Director) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Olin Nowlin v. William Stephens, Director, 548 F. App'x 286 (5th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Olin Ray Nowlin, Texas prisoner # 824386, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of mandamus, in which Nowlin asked the district court to compel the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to order the state trial court to file his state postconviction application and brief that it had refused to file in June 2012. Nowlin’s assertions that he was not seeking mandamus relief, that the district court should have construed his petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and that the district court should have filed and considered his mandamus petition as part of case number 4:04-CV-949-Y based on newly discovered evidence are frivolous.

The appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Nowlin is WARNED that any future frivolous filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to sanctions.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Olin Ray Nowlin, Texas prisoner # 824386, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of mandamus, in which Nowlin asked the district court to compel the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to order the state trial court to file his state postconviction application and brief that it had refused to file in June 2012. Nowlin’s assertions that he was not seeking mandamus relief, that the district court should have construed his petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, and that the district court should have filed and considered his mandamus petition as part of case number 4:04-CV-949-Y based on newly discovered evidence are frivolous.

The appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Nowlin is WARNED that any future frivolous filings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction will subject him to sanctions.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 F. App'x 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/olin-nowlin-v-william-stephens-director-ca5-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack